Appian Community
Site
Search
Sign In/Register
Site
Search
User
DISCUSS
LEARN
SUCCESS
SUPPORT
Documentation
AppMarket
More
Cancel
I'm looking for ...
State
Not Answered
Replies
3 replies
Subscribers
11 subscribers
Views
2041 views
Users
0 members are here
Share
More
Cancel
Related Discussions
Home
»
Discussions
»
Data and Records
HI ALL#User Filter
praveenkumark
over 7 years ago
Am Trying to Create User Filter for Process backed Record of multiple Process Variable give below
Error:An Error Has Occurred
Expression evaluation error at function a!recordListSafeExceptions: An error occurred while executing a save: Expression evaluation error at function fn!getrecorditems_appian_internal [line 25]: Error evaluating function fn!getrecorditems_appian_internal : Cannot filter by field [tClassType] because it is a complex, multiple, or child of a multiple data type.
How to Handle this MultiPle PV Please Provide any Suggestions
Thanks In Advance
OriginalPostID-235951
Discussion posts and replies are publicly visible
0
sikhivahans
over 7 years ago
@praveenkumark To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a direct and clean solution for it and you can try to work around it to SOME extent as follows:
1. Let's say you have a variable of type Text and multiple called listOfCountry_txt. Create a new PV of type Text and single and store the listOfCountry_txt into this new PV in the process model while you are updating the listOfCountry_txt. The definition of new PV, lets call it as country_txt, should be fn!joinarray(pv!listOfCountry_txt,";")
2. Create an Expression-based User filter as follows:
a!facet(
name: "Some name",
options: {
a!facetOption(
id: 1,
name: "Country",
filter: a!queryFilter(
field: "country_txt",
operator: "includes",
value: "Australia"
)
),
\ta!facetOption(
id: 2,
name: "Country",
filter: a!queryFilter(
field: "country_txt",
operator: "includes",
value: "UK"
)
)
},
isVisible: true
)
3. Configure the filter created in the above step in the Record Type.
Test and see how it goes. I should say that you need to ensure its reliability(in terms of getting back the results based on the filter) upon rigorous testing.
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
praveenkumark
over 7 years ago
thanks @sikhivahans implemented same working fine .but for older instances it cant work
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel
0
sikhivahans
over 7 years ago
@praveenkumark Cool. If the previous instances are really important and concerning you, it might be worth doing the same changes in the process instances using IFM.
Cancel
Vote Up
0
Vote Down
Sign in to reply
Verify Answer
Cancel